Seat strength in rear body block tests

Purpose: This study collected and analyzed available testing of motor vehicle seat strength in rearward loading by a body block simulating the torso of an occupant. The data were grouped by single recliner, dual recliner, and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats.

Methods: The strength of seats to rearward loading has been evaluated with body block testing from 1964 to 2008. The database of available tests includes 217 single recliner, 65 dual recliner, and 18 ABTS seats. The trends in seat strength were determined by linear regression and differences between seat types were evaluated by Student's t-test. The average peak moment and force supported by the seat was determined by decade of vehicle model year (MY).

Results: Single recliner seats were used in motor vehicles in the 1960s to 1970s. The average strength was 918 ± 224 Nm (n = 26) in the 1960s and 1,069 ± 293 Nm (n = 65) in the 1980s. There has been a gradual increase in strength over time. Dual recliner seats started to phase into vehicles in the late 1980s. By the 2000s, the average strength of single recliner seats increased to 1,501 ± 335 Nm (n = 14) and dual recliner seats to 2,302 ± 699 Nm (n = 26). Dual recliner seats are significantly stronger than single recliner seats for each decade of comparison (P < .001). The average strength of ABTS seats was 4,395 ± 1,185 in-lb for 1989–2004 MY seats (n = 18). ABTS seats are significantly stronger than single or dual recliner seats (P < .001). The trend in ABTS strength is decreasing with time and converging toward that of dual recliner seats.

Conclusions: Body block testing is an quantitative means of evaluating the strength of seats for occupant loading in rear impacts. There has been an increase in conventional seat strength over the past 50 years. By the 2000s, most seats are 1,700–3,400 Nm moment strength. However, the safety of a seat is more complex than its strength and depends on many other factors.     

Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.

Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000 Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.

Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3 ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 ± 1.9 g vs. 44.2 ± 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 ± 0.8 g vs. 51.7 ± 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 ± 198.0 N vs. 4,160.6 ± 63.6 N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 ± 271.0 N vs. 5,719.3 ± 37.4 N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.     

An energy-absorbing sliding seat for reducing neck injury risks in rear impact—analysis for prototype built

Objective: This study investigated overall performance of an energy-absorbing sliding seat concept for whiplash neck injury prevention. The sliding seat allows its seat pan to slide backward for some distance under certain restraint force to absorb crash energy in rear impacts.

Methods: A numerical model that consisted of vehicle interior, seat, seat belt, and BioRID II dummy was built in MADYMO to evaluate whiplash neck injury in rear impact. A parametric study of the effects of sliding seat parameters, including position and cushion stiffness of head restraint, seatback cushion stiffness, recliner characteristics, and especially sliding energy-absorbing (EA) restraint force, on neck injury criteria was conducted in order to compare the effectiveness of the sliding seat concept with that of other existing anti-whiplash mechanisms. Optimal sliding seat design configurations in rear crashes of different severities were obtained. A sliding seat prototype with bending of a steel strip as an EA mechanism was fabricated and tested in a sled test environment to validate the concept. The performance of the sliding seat under frontal and rollover impacts was checked to make sure the sliding mechanism did not result in any negative effects.

Results: The protective effect of the sliding seat with EA restraint force is comparable to that of head restraint–based and recliner stiffness–based anti-whiplash mechanisms. EA restraint force levels of 3 kN in rear impacts of low and medium severities and 6 kN in impacts of high severity were obtained from optimization. In frontal collision and rollover, compared to the nonsliding seat, the sliding seat does not result in any negative effects on occupant protection. The sled test results of the sliding seat prototype have shown the effectiveness of the concept for reducing neck injury risks.

Conclusion: As a countermeasure, the sliding seat with appropriate restraint forces can significantly reduce whiplash neck injury risk in rear impacts of low, medium, and high severities with no negative effects on other crash load cases.     

Effects of whole spine alignment patterns on neck responses in rear end impact

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the whole spine alignment in automotive seated postures for both genders and the effects of the spinal alignment patterns on cervical vertebral motion in rear impact using a human finite element (FE) model.

Methods: Image data for 8 female and 7 male subjects in a seated posture acquired by an upright open magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system were utilized. Spinal alignment was determined from the centers of the vertebrae and average spinal alignment patterns for both genders were estimated by multidimensional scaling (MDS). An occupant FE model of female average size (162 cm, 62 kg; the AF 50 size model) was developed by scaling THUMS AF 05. The average spinal alignment pattern for females was implemented in the model, and model validation was made with respect to female volunteer sled test data from rear end impacts. Thereafter, the average spinal alignment pattern for males and representative spinal alignments for all subjects were implemented in the validated female model, and additional FE simulations of the sled test were conducted to investigate effects of spinal alignment patterns on cervical vertebral motion.

Results: The estimated average spinal alignment pattern was slight kyphotic, or almost straight cervical and less-kyphotic thoracic spine for the females and lordotic cervical and more pronounced kyphotic thoracic spine for the males. The AF 50 size model with the female average spinal alignment exhibited spine straightening from upper thoracic vertebra level and showed larger intervertebral angular displacements in the cervical spine than the one with the male average spinal alignment.

Conclusions: The cervical spine alignment is continuous with the thoracic spine, and a trend of the relationship between cervical spine and thoracic spinal alignment was shown in this study. Simulation results suggested that variations in thoracic spinal alignment had a potential impact on cervical spine motion as well as cervical spinal alignment in rear end impact condition.     

Thoracic and lumbar spine responses in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study analyzed thoracic and lumbar spine responses with in-position and out-of-position (OOP) seated dummies in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests with conventional and all-belts-to-seat (ABTS) seats. Occupant kinematics and spinal responses were determined with modern (≥2000 MY), older (<2000 MY), and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position or OOP, including leaning forward and leaning inboard and forward. There were 26 in-position tests with 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS and 14 OOP tests with 6 conventional and 8 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented. This study addressed the thoracic and lumbar spine responses. Injury assessment reference values are not approved for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Conservative thresholds exist. The peak responses were normalized by a threshold to compare responses. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: The extension moments were higher in the thoracic than lumbar spine in the in-position tests. For <2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 76.8 ± 14.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 50.5 ± 17.9%. For the ≥2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 54.2 ± 26.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 49.8 ± 27.7%. ABTS seats provided similar thoracic and lumbar responses. Modern seat designs lowered thoracic and lumbar responses. For example, the 1996 Taurus had ?1,696 N anterior lumbar shear force and ?205.2 Nm extension moment. There was ?1,184 N lumbar compression force and 1,512 N tension. In contrast, the 2015 F-150 had ?500 N shear force and ?49.7 Nm extension moment. There was ?839 N lumbar compression force and 535 N tension. On average, the 2015 F-150 had 40% lower lumbar spine responses than the 1996 Taurus. The OOP tests had similar peak lumbar responses; however, they occurred later due to the forward lean of the dummy.

Conclusions: The design and performance of seats have significantly changed over the past 20 years. Modern seats use a perimeter frame allowing the occupant to pocket into the seatback. Higher and more forward head restraints allow a stronger frame because the head, neck, and torso are more uniformly supported with the seat more upright in severe rear impacts. The overall effect has been a reduction in thoracic and lumbar loads and risks for injury.     

Evaluation of the effectiveness of toe board energy-absorbing material for foot,ankle, and lower leg injury reduction

Objective: Since 2000, numerous improvements have been made to the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Incorporated (NASCAR®) driver restraint system, resulting in improved crash protection for motorsports drivers. Advancements have included seats, head and neck restraints (HNRs), seat belt restraint systems, driver helmets, and others. These enhancements have increased protection for drivers from severe crash loading. Extending protection to the driver's extremities remains challenging. Though the drivers’ legs are well contained for lateral and vertical crashes, they remain largely unrestrained in frontal and frontal oblique crashes.

Method: Sled testing was conducted for the evaluation of an energy-absorbing (EA) toe board material to be used as a countermeasure for leg and foot injuries. Testing included baseline rigid toe boards, tests with EA material–covered toe boards, and pretest positioning of the 50th percentile male frontal Hybrid III anthropomorphic test device (ATD) lower extremities. ATD leg and foot instrumentation included foot acceleration and tibia forces and moments.

Results: The sled test data were evaluated using established injury criteria for tibial plateau fractures, leg shaft fractures, and calcaneus, talus, ankle, and midfoot fractures.

Conclusion: A polyurethane EA foam was found to be effective in limiting axial tibia force and foot accelerations when subjected to frontal impacts using the NASCAR motorsport restraint system.     

IIHS head restraint ratings and insurance injury claim rates

Objectives: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) rates front seat/head restraint designs using a combination of static and dynamic measurements following RCAR-IIWPG procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether vehicles with better IIHS-rated seats/head restraints had lower injury risk in rear-end collisions and how the effect of better rated seats interacted with driver gender and age.

Methods: The presence of an associated insurance injury claim was determined for rear-impact crashes using 2001–2014 model year cars and SUVs. Logistic regression was used to compare injury risk for vehicles with good, acceptable, and marginal IIHS-rated seats/head restraints with poor-rated seats/head restraints. Analyses were run by gender and driver age and also by the rate of more severe injury claims.

Results: Injury rates were 11.2% lower for vehicles with seats/head restraints rated good compared to vehicles with seats/head restraints rated poor. The percentage reduction for good- versus poor-rated seats was greater for females (12.7%) than males (8.9%). Comparing good- with poor-rated seats, driver ages 15–24 had the largest reduction at 19.8%, followed by 10.7% for driver ages 45–64 and 10.4% for driver ages 25–44.

Conclusions: Seats/head restraints with better IIHS ratings are associated with lower injury rates in rear-impact collisions than seats rated poor. The reductions in injury rates were strongest for females and for young-to–middle-age drivers. The strong reductions in injury rates for these groups are encouraging given their high initial injury rates.     

An observational study of child safety seat use in an international safe community: Tehran,Iran

Objective: Despite strong evidence of the effectiveness of child safety seats in reducing injuries, the use of these devices in some communities is still rare. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of child safety seat use and the factors influencing its use in the safe community of Tehran.

Methods: This roadside observational study was conducted in 2015 and 2,178 personal cars with a child under 12 years aboard were observed on Tehran's streets in regard to use of child safety seats. Other variables such as the gender of the driver, driver's age group, type of street, region of municipality, time of day, and day of the week were also collected.

Results: Prevalence of child safety seat use was 4.3% and was significantly higher among women drivers, on freeways, and in municipal regions 1, 4, and 7.

Conclusions: The prevalence of child safety seat use in Tehran as a most populous member of the international safe community was very low and most children commuted in insecure situations in the vehicle. Therefore, it is proposed that plans should be made to increase the use of child safety seats in international safe communities.     

A data-driven allocation tool for in-kind resources distributed by a state health department

Objective: The objective of this study was to leverage a state health department's operational data to allocate in-kind resources (children's car seats) to counties, with the proposition that need-based allocation could ultimately improve public health outcomes.

Methods: This study used a retrospective analysis of administrative data on car seats distributed to counties statewide by the Georgia Department of Public Health and development of a need-based allocation tool (presented as interactive supplemental digital content, adaptable to other types of in-kind public health resources) that relies on current county-level injury and sociodemographic data.

Results: Car seat allocation using public health data and a need-based formula resulted in substantially different recommended allocations to individual counties compared to historic distribution.

Conclusions: Results indicate that making an in-kind public health resource like car seats universally available results in a less equitable distribution of that resource compared to deliberate allocation according to public health need. Public health agencies can use local data to allocate in-kind resources consistent with health objectives; that is, in a manner offering the greatest potential health impact. Future analysis can determine whether the change to a more equitable allocation of resources is also more efficient, resulting in measurably improved public health outcomes.     

Driver and front passenger injury in frontal crashes: Update on the effect of unbelted rear occupants

Purpose: This is a study of the influence of an unbelted rear occupant on the risk of severe injury to the front seat occupant ahead of them in frontal crashes. It provides an update to earlier studies.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.

Conclusions: Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions.     

Compatibility of booster seats and vehicles in the U.S. market

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze booster and rear vehicle seat dimensions to identify the most frequent compatibility problems.

Methods: Measurements were collected from 40 high-back and backless boosters and 95 left rear and center rear row seating positions in 50 modern vehicles. Dimensions were compared for 3,800 booster/vehicle seat combinations. For validation and estimation of tolerance and correction factors, 72 booster installations were physically completed and compared with measurement-based compatibility predictions. Dimensions were also compared to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) volumetric envelopes of forward-facing child restraints and boosters.

Results: Seat belt buckles in outboard positions accommodated the width of boosters better than center positions (success rates of 85.4 and 34.7%, respectively). Adequate head restraint clearance occurred in 71.9 to 77.2% of combinations, depending on the booster's head support setting. Booster recline angles aligned properly with vehicle seat cushion angles in 71.5% of combinations. In cases of poor angle alignment, booster angles were more obtuse than the vehicle seat angles 97.7% of the time. Head restraint interference exacerbated angle alignment issues. Data indicate success rates above 90% for boosters being fully supported by the length of the seat cushion and for adequate height clearance with the vehicle roofline. Comparison to ISO envelopes indicates that most boosters on the U.S. market are taller and angled more obtusely than ISO target envelopes.

Conclusions: This study quantifies some of the common interferences between boosters and vehicles that may complicate booster usage. Data are useful for design and to prioritize specific problem areas.     

Teaching infant car seat installation via interactive visual presence: An experimental trial

Objective: A large portion of child restraint systems (car seats) are installed incorrectly, especially when first-time parents install infant car seats. Expert instruction greatly improves the accuracy of car seat installation but is labor intensive and difficult to obtain for many parents. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of 3 ways of communicating instructions for proper car seat installation: phone conversation; HelpLightning, a mobile application (app) that offers virtual interactive presence permitting both verbal and interactive (telestration) visual communication; and the manufacturer's user manual.

Methods: A sample of 39 young adults of child-bearing age who had no previous experience installing car seats were recruited and randomly assigned to install an infant car seat using guidance from one of those 3 communication sources.

Results: Both the phone and interactive app were more effective means to facilitate accurate car seat installation compared to the user manual. There was a trend for the app to offer superior communication compared to the phone, but that difference was not significant in most assessments. The phone and app groups also installed the car seat more efficiently and perceived the communication to be more effective and their installation to be more accurate than those in the user manual group.

Conclusions: Interactive communication may help parents install car seats more accurately than using the manufacturer's manual alone. This was an initial study with a modestly sized sample; if results are replicated in future research, there may be reason to consider centralized “call centers” that provide verbal and/or interactive visual instruction from remote locations to parents installing car seats, paralleling the model of centralized Poison Control centers in the United States.     

Experimental investigation of the effect of occupant characteristics on contemporary seat belt payout behavior in frontal impacts

Objective: The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of the occupant characteristics on seat belt force vs. payout behavior based on experiment data from different configurations in frontal impacts.

Methods: The data set reviewed consists of 58 frontal sled tests using several anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and postmortem human subjects (PMHS), restrained by different belt systems (standard belt, SB; force-limiting belt, FLB) at 2 impact severities (48 and 29 km/h). The seat belt behavior was characterized in terms of the shoulder belt force vs. belt payout behavior. A univariate linear regression was used to assess the factor significance of the occupant body mass or stature on the peak tension force and gross belt payout.

Results: With the SB, the seat belt behavior obtained by the ATDs exhibited similar force slopes regardless of the occupant size and impact severities, whereas those obtained by the PMHS were varied. Under the 48 km/h impact, the peak tension force and gross belt payout obtained by ATDs was highly correlated to the occupant stature (P =.03, P =.02) and body mass (P =.05, P =.04), though no statistical difference with the stature or body mass were noticed for the PMHS (peak force: P =.09, P =.42; gross payout: P =.40, P =.48). With the FLB under the 48 km/h impact, highly linear relationships were noticed between the occupant body mass and the peak tension force (R² = 0.9782) and between the gross payout and stature (R² = 0.9232) regardless of the occupant types.

Conclusions: The analysis indicated that the PMHS characteristics showed a significant influence on the belt response, whereas the belt response obtained with the ATDs was more reproducible. The potential cause included the occupant anthropometry, body mass distribution, and relative motion among body segments specific to the population variance. This study provided a primary data source to understand the biomechanical interaction of the occupant with the restraint system. Further research is necessary to consider these effects in the computational studies and optimized design of the restraint system in a more realistic manner.     

The influence of personal protection equipment,occupant body size,and restraint system on the frontal impact responses of Hybrid III ATDs in tactical vehicles

Objective: Although advanced restraint systems, such as seat belt pretensioners and load limiters, can provide improved occupant protection in crashes, such technologies are currently not utilized in military vehicles. The design and use of military vehicles presents unique challenges to occupant safety—including differences in compartment geometry and occupant clothing and gear—that make direct application of optimal civilian restraint systems to military vehicles inappropriate. For military vehicle environments, finite element (FE) modeling can be used to assess various configurations of restraint systems and determine the optimal configuration that minimizes injury risk to the occupant. The models must, however, be validated against physical tests before implementation. The objective of this study was therefore to provide the data necessary for FE model validation by conducting sled tests using anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). A secondary objective of this test series was to examine the influence of occupant body size (5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male), military gear (helmet/vest/tactical assault panels), seat belt type (3-point and 5-point), and advanced seat belt technologies (pretensioner and load limiter) on occupant kinematics and injury risk in frontal crashes.

Methods: In total, 20 frontal sled tests were conducted using a custom sled buck that was reconfigurable to represent both the driver and passenger compartments of a light tactical military vehicle. Tests were performed at a delta-V of 30 mph and a peak acceleration of 25 g. The sled tests used the Hybrid III 5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male ATDs outfitted with standard combat boots and advanced combat helmets. In some tests, the ATDs were outfitted with additional military gear, which included an improved outer tactical vest (IOTV), IOTV and squad automatic weapon (SAW) gunner with a tactical assault panel (TAP), or IOTV and rifleman with TAP. ATD kinematics and injury outcomes were determined for each test.

Results: Maximum excursions were generally greater in the 95th percentile male compared to the 50th percentile male ATD and in ATDs wearing TAP compared to ATDs without TAP. Pretensioners and load limiters were effective in decreasing excursions and injury measures, even when the ATD was outfitted in military gear.

Conclusions: ATD injury response and kinematics are influenced by the size of the ATD, military gear, and restraint system. This study has provided important data for validating FE models of military occupants, which can be used for design optimization of military vehicle restraint systems.     

High-risk behaviors while driving: A population-based study from Iran

Objective: Traffic injuries are becoming one of the most important challenges of public health systems. Because these injuries are mostly preventable, the aim of this study is to evaluate the four main high-risk behaviors while driving.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on a random sample from the population of Mashhad, Iran, in 2014. A checklist and a previously validated questionnaire for the transtheoretical stages of change model (TTM) were used for data collection. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 11.5 software with P <.05 statistically significant.

Results: Totally 431 individuals were included with a mean age of 30 ± 11.3 years. Forty-three percent (183) were male. The TTM model revealed that participants were mostly in pre-actional phases regarding not using a cell phone while driving (80%), fastening the driver's seat belt (66%), front seat belt (68%), and rear seat belt (85%) The penalty was a protective factor only for using cellphone (odd ratio [OR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68–0.98). Lower education (OR = 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01–0.94) and male gender (OR = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.14–0.83) were indicative of lower rates of fastening the front and rear seat belts.

Conclusion: The stages of change model among study participants is a proper reflection of the effectiveness of the current policies. More serious actions regarding these high-risk behaviors should be considered in legislation.     

Predicting vehicle belt fit for children ages 6–12

Objective: To predict shoulder belt fit and lap belt fit as a function of child age, vehicle seat characteristics, and belt geometry.

Methods: In a previous study, the lap belt and shoulder belt fit of 44 children aged 5–12 were measured in a simulated vehicle seat while varying cushion length, cushion angle, seatback angle, and belt anchorage geometry. A regression model was developed to predict lap belt fit and shoulder belt fit as a function of vehicle parameters and child stature. These regression models were applied to the stature distribution of 6- to 12-year-olds using a range of vehicle geometry data to predict the proportion of children expected to achieve good belt fit in the second-row, outboard seating positions of 46 vehicles when not using belt-positioning boosters.

Results: Across the ranges observed in vehicles, lap belt angle had the strongest effect on lap belt fit, although vehicle cushion length also contributed. Shoulder belt fit was most strongly affected by D-ring location. Vehicles with the geometric conditions most suitable for children are estimated to provide good lap belt fit for 25% of children aged 6 to 12. In 20% of vehicles, the shoulder belt is too far inboard for the target child population; 20% of vehicles are estimated to have shoulder belt fit too far outboard for children ages 6 to 12.

Conclusions: Based on this geometric analysis, the rear seats of most vehicles are unlikely to provide good lap belt fit for up to 75% of children ages 6–12. Shoulder belt fit is outside the target range for 40% of children. Consequently, children under 12 years of age are likely to experience markedly poorer belt fit when transitioning out of a booster seat.